Mountain Republicans and Contemporary Southern Party Politics

Home , Political realignment, Southern Party

Journal of Political Science

Volume 23 Number 1 Article 2

November 1995

Forgotten But Not Gone: Mountain Republicans and Contemporary Southern Party Politics

Robert P. Steed

Tod A. Baker

Laurence W. Moreland

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.coastal.edu/jops

Part of the Political Science Commons

Recommended Citation Steed, Robert P.; Baker, Tod A.; and Moreland, Laurence W. (1995) "Forgotten But Not Gone: Mountain Republicans and Contemporary Southern Party Politics," Journal of Political Science: Vol. 23 : No. 1 , Article 2. Available at: https://digitalcommons.coastal.edu/jops/vol23/iss1/2

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Politics at CCU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Political Science by an authorized editor of CCU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FORGOTTEN BUT NOT GONE: MOUNTAIN REPUBLICANS AND CONTEMPORARY SOUTHERN PARTY POLITICS

Robert P. Steed, The Citadel Tod A. Baker, The Citadel Laurence W. Moreland, The Citadel

Introduction

During the period of Democratic Party dominance of southern politics, Republicans were found mainly in the mountainous areas of western Virginia, western North Carolina, and eastern Tennessee and in a few other counties (e.g., the German counties of eas't central Te_xas) scattered sparsely in the region. Never strong enough to control statewide elections, Republicans in these areas were competitive locally, frequently succeeding in winning local offices. 1 As southern politics changed dramatically during the post-World War II period, research on the region's parties understandably focused on the growth of Republican support and organizational development in those geographic areas and electoral arenas historically characterized by Democratic control. Special attention was given to Republican development in urban and suburban areas and in presidential elections, especially those such as 1964 which were marked by Republican breakthroughs .2 While mountain Republicans have not been totally ignored over the past two to three decades, they have received relatively little attention and have normally been shunted to the back of the stage. This is illustrated by the various recent studies of state elections and politics in the South wherein the mountain areas continue to be set apart in the analyses as significant and separate regions, but they are seldom

5 Steed, Baker, Moreland spotlighted for special examination. 3 More general examinations of Republican growth in the South have also mentioned, but not focused on, the continuing role of mountain Republicans. 4 The relative inattention to mountain Republicans over the past two decades raises some interesting questions about their place in the contemporary southern party system. In this article we are particularly interested in exploring their role within the Republican Party by examining data comparing them in selected ways with non-mountain Republicans. Earlier research suggested that there were some key differences between the mountain Republicans (both activists and organizations) and the new breed of urban/suburban Republicans. For example, in contrast to relatively affluent, middle class conservatives responsible for Republican growth in areas formerly dominated by the Democrats, the mountain Republicans tended to be less affluent, less well educated, and less conservative (even liberal on some issues such as the role of the national government in the economy). They were also less likely to have come into the party by way of a switch in party loyalties, and they were less likely to be non-southerners who had migrated into the region bringing their Republican identification with them. Similarly, reflecting the longer history of Republican organizational effort in the mountain areas, these Republican activists were more likely than the urban/suburban Republicans to have been recruited through some party or political mechanism. In the same vein, their activities varied from those of their partisan colleagues in the areas of new Republican development since both the organizational and electoral circumstances were so different (e.g., more attention to organizational maintenance activities than to organizational development activities). 5 It is possible, of course, that the various changes which have swept the South over the past few decades have diminished or ev~n eliminated these differences. Certainly, the once isolated mountain areas have become less so with advances in the technology of communication and improved transportation. Similarly, economic development in the South has not completely bypassed the mountains, and these areas, too, have experienced varying levels of population change, urbanization, and the like. It is also possible that the influence

6 I The Journal of Political Science MountainRepublicans of the non-mountain Republicans within the party has now become so significantthat the mountain Republicans have been pulled along in theirwake in such a way as to erode intra-party differences. On the other hand, the mountain Republicans, at least in Virginia, North Carolina, and Tennessee, may still constitute a clearly different component of the southern Republican Party. These are aspects of southern party development which have been largely neglected and which should be examined in the interest of a more complete understanding of southern party politics.

Methods and Data

This paper utilizes data from the Southern Grassroots Party Activists Project (SGPAP). This project, funded by a grant from the National Science Foundation . and directed by Lewis Bowman and Charles D. Hadley, involved mail surveys of party precinct officials and county chairs in the 11 states of the South. Response rates varied by state and ranged from a low of 40% (for Louisiana Republicans) to a high of 68 % (for North Carolina Republicans). The overall response rate was 51 % with a total of 10,458 respondents.6 In the analysis presented here, we are using only the data on Republicans in Virginia, North Carolina , and Tennessee to make the comparisons of mountain and non-mountain Republicans. In each state we identified those counties (and, in the case of Virginia, independent cities) traditionally considered the home of mountain Republicanism as the basis for making the appropriate division of activists.7 A preliminary analysis done state-by-state revealed few significant state-by-state variations in the pattern, so here the data will be combined for all three states.

Background Characteristics

A brief description of the demographic characteristics of these local Republican officials will help clarify whether the traditional background differences between mountain Republicans and non-

Volume 23, 1995 \ 7 Steed, Baker, Moreland

mountain Republicans persist into the 1990s. As shown in Table 1, the main aggregate differences are on age, education, income, state of childhood, and time lived in the state. Mountain Republicans tend to be somewhat older (smaller percentages under 50 years of age and larger percentages over 60 years of age), less well educated, and slightly less affluent. Similarly, mountain Republicans are more likely than non-mountain Republicans to come from the South and to be longer-term residents of their current home state (although majorities of both groups have lived in their current states 20 years or more). On the other variables listed in Table 1, there are virtually no differences. All the Republicans are overwhelmingly white and Protestant, and more males than females are local party officials. Only with regard to religion do slight differences emerge with the mountain Republicans being a little more likely to consider themselves to be "Born Again" and to attend church more frequently. In short, the key differences between the mountain Republicans and the non-mountain Republicans relate to socioeconomic variables and residential variables which suggest, at least mildly, that the mountain regions of Tennessee, North Carolina, and Virginia have not been transformed by changes in the South in such a way as to homogenize the Republican Party in those states. This conclusion receives some further support from data on these activists' political backgrounds. (See Table 2.) While essentially no inter-group differences appear on a number of variables-other political positions held, importance of committee membership, presidential vote in 1988, and intention to run for public office-there are a few notable differences on years of previous political activity, party switching, political activity by parents or other relatives, and recruitment patterns. Perhaps reflecting the age differences noted earlier and/or the longer record of local party activity, the mountain Republicans tend to have been politically active longer than the non-mountain Republicans . They are also more likely to have come from politically active families. In addition, they are less likely to have come into the party by way of a switch from the Democratic Party; this is undoubtedly an indication of the importance of party switching to the development of the southern Republican Party outside the mountain areas over the past few decades, but it also suggests that mountain

8 I The Journal of Political Science MountainRepublicans Table I Personal Background Characteristics of Local Republican Activists (in percent)

Backgro und Mt. Other Charact eristic Republicans Republicans

Age Under 40 20 27 40-49 23 25 50-59 19 22 60 and over ~ _M_ 100 100 N= (181) (641) Gender Male 60 63 Female _1Q_ ...IL 100 100 N= (179) (632) Race White 97 94 African American 0 4 Native American 2 I Other _l _1_ 100 100 N= (180) (626) Education High school or less 24 12 Some college 32 32 College Graduate 20 30 Graduate degree _M_ _M_ 100 100 N= (181) (637) Family Income $20,000 or less 12 5 $20-29,000 13 11 $30-39,000 14 17 $40-49,000 15 14 $50-59,000 15 15 $60,000 and over _ll_ ~ 100 100 N= (170) (612)

Volume 23, 1995 \ 9 Steed, Baker, Moreland Table 1 (Continued) Background Mt. Other Characteristic R~lll!blicans Rml!blicans State of Childhood South 85 74 Non-South ---1.i. -1§__ 100 100 N= (181) (641) Number of Years in State 0-5 years 6 7 6-10 years 4 7 11-20 years 6 13 Over 20 years _M_ __.H.. 100 101 N= (181) (641) Religious Affiliation Protestant 96 92 Roman Catholic 1 4 Jewish 1 1 Non-Believer 3 2 Other _O _1 101 100 N= (181) (632) Church Attendance Once a week 53 46 Almost every week 13 19 Once a month 12 12 Few times a year 18 18 Never _4_ _5_ 100 100 N = (178) (632) Religious Identification* Charismatic 6 7 Fundamentalist IO 15 Born Again 40 30 Evangelical 9 16 None of these 41 50

* Percentages indicating that they would describe themselves religiously in these terms. Source: Southern Grassroots Party Activists Project

10 / The Journal of Political Science MountainRepublicans

Republicans are still largely untouched by this phenomenon and that they still mainly populate their local party committees from the ranks of life-long Republicans. In the same vein, mountain Republicans are much more likely than non-mountain Republicans to indicate that they came into party work through the efforts of other party committee members or elected officials; non-mountain Republicans, on the other band, are more likely to have come into party work on their own initiative. In sum, the data reviewed here suggest that the mountain Republican activists in these three states retain background characteristics which continue to set them apart from their partisan colleagues in other parts of the respective states. Of more interest and importance, of course, is whether differences on such matters as ideological and issue positions, political activities, and orientations toward the party remain as well.

Ideologies and Issues

With regard to self-professed political philosophy, there are virtually no differences between mountain Republicans and non-mountain Republicans. (See Table 3.) Displaying a remarkable, but not necessarily surprising, ideological homogeneity, both groups of local Republican officials are overwhelmingly conservative (86 % and 83 % respectively). Inasmuch as earlier studies found some more distinctive ideological divisions between mountain Republicans (less conservative) and urban/suburban Republicans (more conservative), the patterns reported above suggest some change in the direction of less intra-party diversity. This notion is modified somewhat by the data on these local officials' positions on a number of specific issues which were salient during the time of the survey. As indicated in Table 4, there are some notable differences between the mountain Republicans and the non-mountain Republicans on these issues. In general, the mountain Republicans tend to be more liberal, especially with regard to those issues on which the differences are largest, than the non-mountain Republicans. More specifically, of the 14 issues listed in Table

Volume 23, 1995 \ 11 Steed, Baker, Moreland

Table 2 Political Background Characteristics of Local Republican Party Activists (in percent)

Background Mt. Other Characteristic Republicans Republicans

Years Politically Active 10 years or less 32 40 11-20 years 28 31 21-30 years 20 20 More than 30 years _12.. _JQ__ 99 101 N= (181) (641) Other Political Positions Held Party position 52 46 Elective position 27 20 Appointive position 39 34 N= (142)* (540)* Imuortance of County Committee MembershiQ Very Important 47 41 Somewhat Important 41 41 Not Very Important 10 14 Not Important At All _ 2_ _4 _ 100 100 N= (175) (622) Pam Switcher? Yes 9 30 No _21._ _]Q_ 100 100 N= (175) (629) 1988 Presidential Vote Bush 99 98 Dukakis 0 1 Other 1 1 Did Not Vote _Q_ _o 100 100 N= (180) (635)

12 I The Journal of Political Science MountainRepublicans

Table 2 (Continued)

Background Mt. Other ~haracteristic Republicans Republicans

Parents Qr Relative~ Active? Yes 57 47 No _ft_ ~ 100 100 N= (171) (623) Recruitment By:** Party Committee Member 64 47 County Chair 45 33 Elected Official 34 12 Candidate for Office 15 11 Decided on Own 46 52 (130)* (504)* MQst lmnQrtant Recruitment Factor Committee Member 30 26 County Chair 22 19 Elected Official 11 5 Candidate 3 5 On My Own -1£ -1£ 100 99 N= (138) (537) Plan to Run for Public Office Yes 16 18 No 57 50 Undecided -2,]__ ___R_ 100 100 N= (178) (636)

* Minimum N on these separate questions . ** Entry indicates the percentage of each group saying that this was a "very important" consideration in their decision to become active in party committee work . Source: Southern Grassroots Party Activists Project

Volume 23, 1995 \ 13 Steed, Baker, Moreland

Table 3 Ideological Positions of Local Republican Party Officials (in percent)

Mt. Other Ideology Republicans Republicans

Very liberal 1 1 Somewhat liberal 2 2 Moderate 12 14 Somewhat conservative 55 46 Very conservative -1L _J]_ 101 100 N = (181) (632)

Source: Southern Grassroots Party Activists Project.

4, the mountain Republicans are more liberal in the aggregate than the non-mountain Republicans on ten while the reverse is true for only two. Moreover, on all the issues with fairly large differences - governmental assistance for women, fewer government services to cut government spending, and government assistance in health care-the mountain Republicans are consistently the more liberal of the two groups. 8 Again , we advance any conclusions regarding these data with appropriate caution, given the insignificant differences on most of these issues , but the consistency of the pattern does suggest that the mountain Republicans still differ from the newer Republicans at least in some issue areas. This is especially the case on such issues as cutting government services and government health care assistance, but it also shows up to a lesser degree on a number of other issues (e.g., environmental protection, government job assistance, continued cooperation with Russia) .

14 / The Journal of Political Science MountainRepublicans

Table 4 Local Republican Party Officials' Positions on Selected Issues (in percent liberal responses)

Mt. Other Js;ues Republicans Republicans

Social Issues Assistance for women 61 51 Personal choice for abortion 43 45 School prayer 10 10 Environmental protection 69 62 Government aid for blacks/ minorities 40 34 Support women 's equality 88 83 Affirmative action 6 4

EcQnomic Issues Fewer services to cut government spending 39 25 Constitutional amendment to balance budget 11 14 State tax increase for financial crisis 10 7 Government aid in jobs and living standards 20 14 Government health care assistance 67 51

Foreign Policy /Defense Issues Increase defense spending 45 45 Continue cooperation with Russia 89 81

Source: Southern Grassroots Party Activists Project.

Volume 23, 1995 \ 15 Steed, Baker, Moreland

Political Activities and Party Orientations

In examining levels of participation in various activities, at least three possibilities exist for Republicans in these three states. One possibility is that Republicans in the non-mountain areas will be more active than the mountain Republicans inasmuch as they must work to build organizational and electoral strength to overcome the initial weakness which existed in these areas prior to the 1960s while the mountain Republicans, enjoying the benefits of historical strength, are free from such pressures. The second possibility is that the mountain Republicans, long accustomed to engaging vigorously in a highly competitive political subsystem, will be more active than non-mountain Republican officials who have fewer (and weaker) habits of activity and socialization to draw upon; that is, starting from a base of organizational and electoral weakness may be a continuing drag on levels of political activity even after the party's competitive situation has appreciably improved. The third possiblity is that the Republicans in both the mountain areas and the non-mountain areas will be about equally active, but for logically different reasons. Of the three possibilities, the second seems most likely from the data presented in Table 5. In a general sense, the mountain Republicans demonstrate higher levels of activity than the non-mountain Republicans. For example, of the 26 activities listed, the mountain Republicans are more active on 20. This is especially the case for the first 13 activities listed which relate more to efforts of an individual nature (as compared to the final 13 which relate more to activities occurring within an organizational context). While a qualification is in order, however, inasmuch as the inter-group differences on many of these activities are quite small and insignificant, the pattern is still striking. A more telling figure relates to those activities in each state where the inter-group differences are ten percentage points or more. While there are only five of these, with regard to each the mountain Republicans again demonstrate higher activity levels. In short, then, the data suggest that the mountain Republicans tend to be more active than the non-mountain Republicans.

16 I The Journal of Political Science MountainRepublicans Table 5 Political Activities of Local Republican Party Activists (in percent performing the listed activities)

Mt. Other Activities Republicans Republicans

Contacting voters 89 88 Raising money 68 59 Voter registration 86 83 Campaigning 82 82 Public relations 83 75 Contacting new voters 80 78 Party meetings/business 90 87 Recruiting/organizing workers 78 75 County party organization work 83 75 Increasing pol. info for others 73 78 Policy formulation 67 60 Recruit cands. for local office 79 64 Other nominating activities 61 49

Organized door -to-door canvassing 34 29 Organized campaign events 54 43 Arranged fund raising 48 38 Organized mailings 51 50 Distrib uted campaign literature 72 74 Organized telephone campaigns 44 49 Purchased billboard space 10 7 Distributed posters and lawn signs 67 72 Conducted registration drives 36 31 Used public orinion surveys 14 15 Dealt with campaign media 34 31 Candidate consultation (before announcing) 83 67 Suggested candidate run 87 81

Source: Southern Grassroots Party Activists Project

Volume 23, 1995 \ 17 Steed, Baker, Moreland

This conclusion receives . some limited support from the data in Table 6 on levels of activity in different types of elections. Although there are virtually no differences between the mountain Republicans and the non-mountain Republicans in state and national elections, the mountain Republicans do report higher levels of activity in local elections. This is not surprising inasmuch as non-mountain Republican electoral success has been greatest at the national level over the past few decades and least at the local level. As Republican support begins to increase in downticket elections, as it has begun to do in recent elections, this disparity will probably tend to disappear. Overall, even considering the variations and exceptions noted above, the data in Tables 5 and 6 suggest that mountain Republicans are more active than non-mountain Republicans. We can speculate that the longer history of competitiveness and organizational activity in these areas contribute to this pattern of continuing differentiation between these two groups of Republicans. The final part of the analysis focuses on these local party activists' orientations toward the party and its proper role in the political system. Two points in particular are examined. The first relates to indications of professional versus amateur orientations toward the party. The second relates to the activists' perceptions of the appropriate relationship between the various levels of the party organization. With regard to the first of these points, the mountain Republicans generally demonstrate a more professional view of the party and its candidates than do the non-mountain Republicans. (See Table 7.) For example, mountain Republican activists are more likely than their non-mountain colleagues to agree that good party workers support candidates with whom they disagree (56% to 43 %), that party unity is more important than free discussion of divisive issues (47% to 33 %), that controversial issues should be avoided to promote party unity (56% to 43 %), and that good party workers should remain neutral in primaries (67% to 47%) . Only on the issue of candidates compromising their values to win votes did the mountain Republicans not differ much from the non-mountain Republicans; each group overwhelmingly opposed such compromising of values (94 % and 90 %) respective} y).

18 / The Journal of Political Science Mountain Republicans

Table 6 Campaign Activity Levels of Local Republican Party Activists (in percent)

Mt. Other Republicans Republicans

Local Elections Very active 71 57 Somewhat active 20 26 Not very active 8 13 Not active at all _.£. _A... 101 100 N= (179) (635)

State Elections Very active 59 57 Somewhat active 33 33 Not very active 7 7 Not active at all _1 _3_ 100 100 N= (180) (634)

National Elections Very active 56 56 Somewhat active 31 31 Not very active 11 9 Not active at all _2_ _4_ 100 100 N= (180) (633)

Source: Southern Grassroots Party Activists Project

Volume 23, 1995 \ 19 Steed, Baker, Moreland

Table 7 Local Republican Party Activists' Views on Party Activities and Organization (in percent)

Mt. Other Republicans Republicans Good party workers support candidate with whom they disagree Strongly agree 14 10 Agree 42 33 Disagree 36 42 Strongly disagree _8_ _li__ 100 100 N= (177) (629) Party unity is more important than free discussion of divisive issues Strongly agree 19 9 Agree 28 24 Disagree 43 52 Strongly disagree _lQ_ _li__ 100 100 N= (176) (623) Candidates should not compromise values even if necessary to win office Strongly agree 55 51 Agree 39 39 Disagree 5 8 Strongly disagree __ I __ 1 100 99 N= (177) (632) A void controversial issues to ensure party unity Strongly agree 16 7 Agree 40 36 Disagree 37 44 Strongly disagree _7_ __il._ 100 100 N= (176) (622)

20 I The Journal of Political Science MountainRepublicans

Table 7 (Continued)

Mt. Other Republicans Republicans

Good QartY workers should reroaill neutral in i;1rimaries Strongly agree 30 18 Agree 37 29 Disagree 29 42 Strongly disagree _4_ -1.L 100 100 N= (176) (629)

No state Qarty direction of local i;1arty activity Strongly agree 20 16 Agree 44 40 Disagree 32 40 Strongly disagree _ 4_ _4 _ 100 100 N= (176) (620)

No national Qarty direction of state i;1artyactivity Strongly agree 16 15 Agree 45 40 Disagree 36 41 Strongly disagree _4_ _4_ 101 100 N = (172) (609)

Source: Southern Grassroots Party Activists Project

Volume 23, 1995 \ 21 Steed, Baker, Moreland

Finally, mountain Republicans are slightly more in favor of the autonomy of lower organizational levels from control by upper organizational levels. While the differences are not very striking, the mountain Republicans more than the non-mountain Republicans tend to oppose both state control of local party organizations and national control of state party organizations. Majorities of all local Republican activists favor organizational federalism, but the strong strain of independence which bas long characterized the mountain Republicans continues to be a differentiating feature.

Discussion

The data reviewed above suggest that the traditional mountain Republicans, while not so sharply different from their non-mountain counterparts as they once were, have not completely lost their distinctive identity in the wave of change that bas swept the South since the 1950s. In the three states examined here, the mountain Republicans are drawn from somewhat different segments of the population (perhaps reflecting still differing populations in the mountains) than are the non-mountain Republicans. Older, less well educated, more deeply rooted in the South and in the home state, less affluent, and a bit more likely to attend church frequently and to consider themselves to be born again, these mountain Republican activists continue to display in only slightly modified form the characteristics which earlier set their partisan forebears apart from the activists working to develop the Republican Party in other parts of the South. This differentiation applies as well to a number of political background characteristics. The mountain Republicans tend to be much less likely to be party switchers, they tend more to be long term activists , they are more likely to come from families with a history of party activity , and they display recruitment patterns which reflect the historical establishment of the Republican Party in these areas. With regard to issues and ideology, the differences between mountain Republicans and non-mountain Republicans are less dramatic, but there are still some variations with the mountain Republicans exhibiting somewhat more liberalism than the non-mountain Republicans. The

22 I The Journal of Political Science Mountain Republicans key attitudinal differences, however , relate to these Republican activists' respective views on the party organization. Here, the mountain Republicans generally display a greater professional orientation than the non-mountain Republicans, and they also tend to have a somewhat higher level of concern for organizational independence from central direction than the non-mountain Republicans. Finally, with regard to their political activities, the mountain Republican activists, as compared with the non-mountain Republican activists, are generally more active both in terms of a broad range of specific activities and in terms of levels of electoral activity in local elections. We speculate that this reflects the importance of a long tradition of political competitiveness in these areas as compared with the relatively shorter period of electoral competitiveness in the non-mountain areas. We must note, of course, that in spite of these intra-party differences, the mountain Republicans and the non-mountain Republicans are quite similar in a number of ways (e.g., they tend to be ideologically conservative). Additionally, on some of the variables there are variations among the mountain Republicans in the different states which are masked to some degree by our combination of the data. For example, in analyses not reported here, we find that, in sharp contrast to the patterns in North Carolina and Tennessee, mountain Republicans in Virginia are essentially undifferentiated from non-mountain Republicans on the professional-amateur dimension (and suggesting, thereby, a possible fruitful line for further inquiry). 9 In spite of these qualifications, however, the central thrust of this analysis is that mountain Republicans, long virtually forgotten, are not gone. They remain a part of the landscape which deserves continuing attention in our efforts to understand the southern party system. Certainly , it would seem wise for anyone studying state politics or examining specific elections in at least the three states included in this paper to be alert to the role of the mountain Republican activists (and voters). Simply lumping them together with all other Republicans, these data suggest, runs a serious risk of masking some important variations or nuances which might well help clarify recent developments in the southern party system. Certainly, there is some

Volume 23, 1995 \ 23 Steed, Baker, Moreland potential for geographically based intra-party cleavages which might surface under certain conditions. Finally, these data serve as clear reminders that in our understandable interest in investigating the ways the southern political system has changed, we must not forget that there are still some elements of that system which have not changed so dramatically; elements of continuity as well as elements of change deserve our attention.

Robert P. Steed (Ph.D., University of Virginia) is professor of political science at The Citadel. He is a codirector of The Citadel Symposium on Southern Politics, has codirected surveys of state convention delegates and party officials, and has coedited nine books dealing with southern politics. He has published on southern politics, party politics, the presidency, political socialization, and South Carolina politics, and is currently involved in research on local party activists in the South.

Tod A. Baker (Ph.D., University of Tennessee) is professor of political science at The Citadel. He has conducted numerous surveys of political activists and is a codirector of The Citadel Symposium on Southern Politics. He has been involved in the development of a number of professional papers and publications in the areas of urban politics, southern politics, and party activists, and has coedited nine books on various aspects of southern politics. He is currently continuing his work on southern politics with special attention to the role of religion in the region .

Laurence W. Moreland (M .A., Duke University) is professor of political science at The Citadel. He is a codirector of The Citadel Symposium on Southern Politics and has conducted research on political party activists, southern politics, and elections. In addition to authoring a number of publications and professional papers, he has coedited nine books. He is currently engaged in analyzing data from surveys on local party activists in the South.

24 / The Journal of Political Science MountainRepublicans

Endnotes

1. v. o. Key, Jr., Southern Politics in State and Nation New York: Alfred A. Knopf 1949, pp. 277-297; and Alexander Heard , A Two PartYSout h? Chapel Hill, N.C.: University of North Carolina Press, 1952, pp. 37-73.

2. Within a large literature, the following are illustrative: Donald S. Strong, "The Presidential Election in the South, 1952," The Journal of Politics 17 (1955): 343-389; Donald S. Strong, "Durable Republicanism in the South, " in Alan P. Sindler ed., Change in the Contemporary South Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1963, pp. 174-194; Donald S. Strong, Urban Republicanism in the South Birmingham: Birmingham Printing Co., 1964; Philip E. Converse, "A Major Political Realignment in the South?" in Sindler, Change in· the Contemporary South, pp. 195-222; Philip E. Converse , "On the Possibility of Major Political Realignment in the South," in Angus Campbell, et al., Elections and the Political Order New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1966, pp. 212-242; Bernard Cosman, "Presidential Republicanism in the South, 1962," Journal of Politics 24 (1962): pp. 303-322; Samuel DuBois Cook, "Political Movements and Organizations," Journal of Politics 26 (1964): 130-153; Bernard Cosman, The Case of the GoldwaterDelegates: Deep South Republican Leadership University, Alabama: University of Alabama Bureau of Public Administration , 1966; Bernard Cosman, Five States for GoldwaterUniversity, Alabama: University of Alabama Press, 1966; Bernard Cosman , "Deep South Republicans: Profiles and Positions," in Bernard Cosman and Robert J. Huckshom eds., RepublicanPolitics New York: Praeger, 1968, pp. 76-112; Kevin Phillips, The Emerging RepublicanMajority New Rochelle: Arlington House , 1969; William C. Havard, The Changing Politics of the South Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1972; and Numan V. Bartley and Hugh D. Graham , Southern Politics and the Second Reconstruction Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press , 1975.

25 Steed, Baker, Moreland

3. See, for example, the chapters on Tennessee, North Carolina, and Virginia in the following: Robert P. Steed, Laurence W. Moreland, and Tod A. Baker eds., The 1984 Presidential Election in the South: Patterns of Southern Party Politics New York: Praeger, 1986; Robert H. Swansbrough and David M. Brodsky eds., The South's New Politics: Realignment and Dealignment Columbia, S.C.: University of South Carolina Press, 1988; Laurence W. Moreland, Robert P. Steed, and Tod A. Baker eds., The 1988 Presidential Election in the South: Continuity Ami.dst Change in Southern Party Politics New York: Praeger, 1991; and Robert P. Steed, Laurence W. Moreland, and Tod A. Baker eds. , The 1992 Presidential Election in the South: Current Patterns of Southern Party and Electoral Politics Westport, Conn .: Praeger, 1994.

4. For example, Louis M. Seagull, Southern Republicanism New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1975; Alexander P. Lamis, The Two-Party South New York: Oxford University Press, 1984; and Earl Black and Merle Black, Politics and Society in the South Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1987.

5. This paragraph is based on extracting separate discussions of urban/suburban Republicans and mountain Republicans in Key, Southern Politics; Heard, A Two-Party South?; Strong, "The Presidential Election in the South, 1952"; Strong, Durable Republicanism in the South"; Strong, Urban Republicanism in the South; Cook , "Political Organizations and Movements"; Cosman, "Presidential Republicanism in the South"; and comparative discussions in Robert P. Steed, "Republican Organizations in Three Locales in Virginia" Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Virginia, 1969; and Robert P. Steed, "Southern Republican Leadership: A Selective Comparison of Urban and Mountain Republican Committeemen in Three Virginia Locales" Paper presented at the 1969 annual meeting of the Southern Political Science Association, Atlanta, Georgia, November, 1969.

26 Mountain Republicans

6. The Southern Grassroots Party Activists Project is a collaborative effort funded by a grant from the National Science Foundation under Grant SES-9009846 and administered through the University of New Orleans. The government has certain rights to these data. Any opinions, research findings, conclusions, or recommendations reported from this project are those of the authors and do necessarily relect the views of the National Science Foundation.

7. The mountain counties and independent cities are as follows. For Tennessee: Anderson, Bledsoe, Blount, Bradley, Campbell, Carter, Claiborne, Cocke, Cumberland, Grainer, Greene, Hamblen, Hamilton, Hancock, Hawkins, Jefferson, Johnson, Knox, Louden, McMinn, Meigs, Monroe, Morgan, Polk, Rhea, Roane, Scott, Sevier, Sullivan, Unicoi, Union, Washington. For North Carolina: Alleghany, Ashe, Avery, Buncombe, Cherokee, Clay, Graham, Haywood, Henderson, Jackson, Macon, Madison, Mitchell, Swain, Transylvania, Watauga, Yancey. For Virginia: Alleghany, Augusta, Bath, Bland, Botetourt, Buchanan, Clarke, Craig, Dickenson, Frederick, Giles, Highland, Lee, Montgomery, Page, Pulaski, Roanoke (county), Rockbddge , Rockingham, Russell, Scott, Shenandoah, Smyth, Tazewell, Warren, Washington, Wise, Wythe, Bristol, Buena Vista, Clifton Forge, Covington, Galax, Harrisonburg, Lexington, Norton, Radford, Roanoke (city), Salem, South Boston, Waynesboro, Winchester.

8. Further support of these issue differences is provided by an examination of the issue positions in individual states. In each of the three states, the patterns hold as described for the three states combined.

9. See Robert P. Steed, Tod A. Baker, and Laurence W. Moreland, "Mountain Republicans in the Contemporary Southern Party System" Paper presented at the 1994 annual meeting of the Southern Political Science Association, Atlanta, Georgia, November, 1994.